Quick Introduction We have all been on forums, chats, reddit, discord, youtube, or somewhere and heard “Oh! Model XYZ is AMAZEBALLZ!zomgwtfbbq” then downloaded it (or more likely, some quantized form of it) and said “eww… This sucks!” This post is going to be a rather technical series of experiments to demonstrate the impact of implementation-specific hazards with inference. I will be using the term “reference implementation” to describe the lab that published and offers first-party hosting of ...
Sounds like you haven’t tried modern AI yet. I could train an AI on your comment history and copy you, and nobody would be able to tell the difference
You’re underestimating most people
You overestimate most people. Here’s a study from 2025
https://arxiv.org/html/2211.13087
This is an interesting study. I wonder why there’s such a disparity between the number of AI ‘participants’ (10) and human participants (1,916). I wonder how adding additional AI models would impact the data.
Anyway, this is just benchmarking the AI on 6 language specific tasks. They were programmed and set up specifically to perform whatever specific one task they had to do at the time, that is what computers do. The fact that computers are 1% better at recognizing other computers than humans are is irrelevant.
AI cannot pass the Turing Test, this article is about “6 Turing like tasks” and it can’t even pass those yet, lmao. You know they’re already seeing diminishing returns in further training right?
Even in this article it says that even if AI could pass a real Turing Test it wouldn’t be a sign of intelligence or cognition.
I’ve tried. They’re adamant against AI here. It’s not even worth the discussion. There’s an army of belligerent people here who have made up their minds that LLM are “stochastic parrots” and they’re convinced they understand exactly how they work. No one can tell them otherwise. Doesn’t even matter your credentials. They’re the experts here. If you argue, they’ll only belittle you.
Save yourself the frustration and heartache; just silently pity them.
I work in tech
Uh huh… That makes you specifically qualified on the topic? Far more than myself, certainly, with my MSc in Machine Learning.
As far as understanding the technology goes? It makes me more qualified than 99% of the AI glazers I encounter, but you may be an exception.
To say that an LLM is “less dumb” is a misnomer tho, because it implies that the LLM is “thinking” rather than “calculating”.
My issue here is the anthropomorphic language being used to intentionally mislead people who don’t have even a tertiary understanding of the underlying mechanics.
Surely you know that under the hood it’s all just algorithms. 1s and 0s run through a fluctuating probability equation.
Surely you know that under the hood we’re all just algorithms? Electrical impulses determining what we’re going to do before our own consciousness are aware of the impending decision.
You make the mistake of ascribing more importance to the “1s and 0s” of neuron activity we ourselves encompass, and imagining that a different arrangement of that exact same activity could not possibly yield a similar outcome. It’s like saying plants can’t be alive because they don’t have brains.
It’s nothing like saying “plants can’t be alive”, that’s preposterous.
You make the mistake of thinking that brains and computers are exactly the same when we only really understand the workings of one of those things (computers).
All of the world’s top neuroscientists would tell you that we don’t really actually know how the human brain works.
People who are far more qualified than you to make such a comparison would not do so.
Your argument is built upon a logical fallacy known as “false equivalence”. If you’re not familiar, it means that you are presenting two things as equivalent based on flawed logic.
You’ve probably heard someone use an idiom about comparing apples and oranges right? Doing so would be a false equivalence, that’s where the idiom comes from.
Another example of false equivalence would be your comparison of my logically sound argument to a completely unrelated and nonsensical assertion about plants.
Sorry, ‘h0tbeef’, I forgot that only you understand consciousness and only you know how it is defined. So only you know what qualifies, because of your superior understanding that no one else can possibly hope to have.
Of course, only humans are capable of being conscious, you’re absolutely right as always. You’re so clever, you should go reward yourself with a cookie.
Oh, have we reached the stage of the debate where you project your insecurities onto me in a desperate bid to avoid conceding your palpably untenable position? How dignified.
If you wish to gain more knowledge and understanding, I would suggest you stop outsourcing your cognition to a chatbot.